[Advocacy Advisors] That Google vote today

[Karl Sigfrid]

James,

I cannot offer an in-depth analysis, but here are a few additions to 
what you have already written:

The resolution originates from within the EPP group, authored by, the 
German Christian Democrat Andreas Schwab. As you point out, it was then 
tabled by members from both EPP and S&D.

Here is the entire thing for anyone interested:

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=MOTION&reference=B8-2014-0286&language=EN

What some have described as a call for a Google break-up can be found as 
item number 10 in the list. Judging from the non-committal formulations, 
it is probably not meant to be taken as more than a general signal of 
discontent.

The parliament says in the resolution that the Commission should 
“consider” proposals to unbundle search engines from other commercial 
services “as one potential long term means” to achieve its policy goals.

In other words, they don't really take a stand for unbundling. Only for 
viewing unbundling as one of many options, but that doesn't make a very 
good headline.

A reason for the resolution to come now could be that we have a new 
antitrust Commissioner whom the EP wants to encourage to follow up on 
previous efforts to scrutinize practices such as integrating Google 
services with the search engine.

An article which I found informative was this one from from the NYT:

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/28/business/international/google-european-union.html?_r=0 


Best regards,
Karl

James Heald skrev den 11/27/2014 9:10 PM:
> I appreciate that it was of symbolic value only, and the text is 
> exhortative only, but Dimi and Karl, could you give us a bit of 
> background on the Google vote today.
>
> It's always a bit difficult for outsiders to understand what's going 
> on, who's voted for what and why, because even the recorded roll-count 
> votes aren't published for a couple of days, and without really 
> following the dossier it takes a lot of work to unpack which amendment 
> is which, and which groups went which way over it.
>
> The crude picture I've got from tweets here and there is that there 
> was an amendment to take out the break-up language from the 
> resolution, with (I think) the Liberals and some national delegations 
> critical of the measure, and the Greens seeing it as a distraction; or 
> worse, as a Trojan horse to force Google to have to index links even 
> if it had to pay for the privilege.
>
> But these amendments were voted down roughly 3-to-1 -- presumably by 
> other groups who hadn't written them.
>
>
> Both the Economist and policy tank EPIC had some things to say about 
> why it doesn't appear to make that much sense
>
> http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21635000-european-moves-against-google-are-about-protecting-companies-not-consumers-should-digital?fsrc=scn/tw/te/pe/ed/shoulddigitalmonopolies 
>
>
> http://www.epicenternetwork.eu/briefings/unbundling-search-engines/
>
> Even if Google's market share is massive, search is a very contestable 
> market, and there's very little consumer lock-in.
>
> Google's Android can arguably be said to be pro-competitive, a 
> defensive effort that made sense for Google, to prevent its core 
> offerings being sidelined at the Operating System level.
>
>
> So why did this motion get so many MEPs to pile in with their support?
>
> Which were the groups that pushed it, and why?
>
> And if, as some are saying, this is the publishers showing their 
> legislative power with a warning shot against those who seek a more 
> liberalised downstream copyright environment, is that analysis right; 
> and does it suggest that the forces of restriction have a strong hold 
> on a large swathe of MEPs ?
>
> I'd be interested to know the team's analysis.
>
>   --  James.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Advocacy_Advisors mailing list
> Advocacy_Advisors at lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/advocacy_advisors

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/advocacy_advisors/attachments/20141128/f70e82f8/attachment.html>